Jump to content

Talk:Hamas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.236.151.125 (talk) at 22:41, 11 October 2023 (→Can some please put on "(denied)" on "antisemitism"?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Former featured article candidateHamas is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2004Featured article candidateNot promoted

Strange word wrapping in Etymology section

At least on my iPhone XR (in Safari), there is a peculiarity in the word wrap of حركة المقاومة الإسلامية, whereby حركة appears at the end of one line, while the rest of the phrase appears at the beginning of the next lien. Obviously, حركة should appear at the end of the phrase, as Arabic is written in a right-to-left script. The misplacement of حركة is very confusing to the reader at first glance, since it appears in the context of an explanation that Hamas is an acronym, and the word is clearly out of order. Is this a common issue with mobile browser rendering of Arabic script? Is there any markup that will force the phrase to render appropriately across line wraps in any screen format? Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On further examination, it appears that this problem is not specific to iOS or Safari. I am able to replicate it in Chrome on Windows 11 by adjusting the width of the browser window. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On still further examination, this problem is not limited to the article page. In Chrome on Windows 11, this section of the Talk page garbles the phrase حركة المقاومة الإسلامية across a word break, with حركة appearing as the second word of the phrase, immediately following المقاومة. Nonstopdrivel (talk) 17:40, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Mashaal stepped down in 2017

for the section in the header reading "Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh and Khaled Mashaal are based in Qatar."

according to his wikipedia page, Khaled Mashaal stepped down in 2017 after reaching his term limit RedAuburn (talk) 08:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Thanks. Fixed. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023

On the Hamas Wiki page, Turkey is listed as Allies with a source. I've checked the source and read the article, the source only mentions "Turkey supports Hamas, Erdogan supports Hamas" without any source is being cited to support that argument. I think the source is subjective and not based on falsifiable facts. I think this part should me removed. It looks like someone actually tried to fix this based on what I see as "partial" added next to Turkey to denote their "partial" allegiance. I think someone should do something with this. This is bad journalism. Gorkemer (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Melmann 23:33, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 October 2023 (2)

Change: "Hamas leaders Ismail Haniyeh is based in Qatar." To "Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is based in Qatar."

(Remove the "S" in leaders. Only one leader described in this sentence. ) Uhhhum (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:06, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can some please put on "(denied)" on "antisemitism"?

Here's the source "Hamas does not fight and resist the Israelis because they are Jews, but because they are occupiers. Hamas has no problem with anyone because of their religion, race, sect or idea; its key contradiction, however, is with the occupiers and aggressors." https://hamas.ps/en/page/5/About-Hamas#:~:text=Hamas%20does%20not%20fight%20and%20resist%20the%20Israelis%20because%20they%20are%20Jews%2C%20but%20because%20they%20are%20occupiers.%20Hamas%20has%20no%20problem%20with%20anyone%20because%20of%20their%20religion%2C%20race%2C%20sect%20or%20idea%3B%20its%20key%20contradiction%2C%20however%2C%20is%20with%20the%20occupiers%20and%20aggressors. 37.39.247.202 (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already mentioned in the Statements to an international audience section. Alaexis¿question? 19:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Hamas protests in Australia chanting " gas the jews" shows otherwise 71.236.151.125 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization

This is devolving into WP:NOTFORUM rants against Wikipedia and personal attacks against editors. Please see MOS:TERRORIST and the result of UN resolutions trying to declare Hamas a terrorist organisation, which have failed to pass. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

That should be its primary descriptor as such is with Al-Qaeda and ISIS 23.93.17.238 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP editor. You are absolutely right but English Wikipedia is widely known to have a liberal bias. And, unlike other sources, Wikipedia does not officially acknowledge it.
What's happening right now is that Wikipedia's administrators take over pet articles, like this one, and protect by claiming everything needs to come from a "reliable source", as defined by themselves! They get to be the gatekeepers of it all and through a very convoluted process where you must register, become a known editor and already conform to their methods, you can then "vote" once every few years on what is and is not a "reliable source".
For the purposes of this article, they will skim over the largest countries in the world designating Hamas as a pure terrorist organization, since China doesn't consider it. And give it unequal weight since Reuters or AP, already biased sources, try to state Hamas is a "militant group" instead of purely a terrorist one. On this end, Wikipedia Administrators that have been editing and protecting this article for years, will unilaterally ignore the WSJ, NY Times, Globe and Mail, and BBC and go with AP's preferred term to "protect the integrity" of this article.
That is why, they will only allow the adjective "Terrorist" to be referred to in this article as a specific country's designation for Hamas is. Notwithstanding Hamas' allies are also other terrorist organizations, like Hezbollah.
All of this, dear IP editor, is to let you know that Wikipedia has not been and is not interested in being a neutral purveyor of news. Articles like this only show a very biased and globally liberal viewpoint.
2601:18B:8180:D810:91B:681B:EE69:D4AD (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's easy to get emotional given the events, but it is important that Wikipedia stays objective. The term "terrorism" is controversial. Many would argue the IDF's actions are also terrorism, for instance. The plain reality is that some countries think Hamas is terrorist; others do not. So we need to stay balanced. 2001:569:57B2:4D00:C9A0:AE48:F495:2536 (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think terrorism is purposely targeting civilians, whereas targeting militants with accidental civilian casualties wouldn't be terrorism. If Hamas is raiding shelters specifically meant for civilians and gunning down children with assault rifles, that is a terrorist act. 23.93.17.238 (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The IDF’s actions are in response to an initial attack. Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians for political purposes, like Hamas slaughtering concert goers. The plain fact is Hamas is a terrorist organization whereas the IDF is a nation’s army. Also the fact that the US lists Hamas as a terrorist organization is proof enough, unless you’re basing this off the opinions of Russian, China, North Korea and Iran. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I know about leftism is that it revolves around workers' rights and social welfare. I do not understand why or how a leftist website would sympathize with a fundamentalist and violent movement similar to right-wing western parties. Is this truly leftist or is Wikipedia under the influence of terror sympathizers? 23.93.17.238 (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see MOS:TERRORIST. Iskandar323 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The pro-Hamas editor does everything possible to make Hamas look good, lol. Shocker. LVMH11 (talk) 07:54, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s because leftists see everything as the oppressors vs the oppressed. In this case, Israel is the oppressor, or “occupier,” and Hamas is acting on behalf of poor, oppressed Palestine. 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Watch this reply get deleted. This perfectly sums up the problem with Wikipedia. Wonder why they have beg for donations every few weeks? The US has Hamas listed as a terrorist organization that should be enough. The AP, which gave us such racist gems as capitalizing the “b” in “black” but not the “w” in “white,” is a very biased source. However, the editors here don’t accept allsides.com as reliable, of course, because they don’t like that it shows how the majority of their “reliable sources” are left wing.
Source: https://www.state.gov/foreign-terrorist-organizations/ 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:B9B5:DAF7:5165:2743 (talk) 01:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why on Earth would the use of the term by the US, a close ally of one of the countries involved in the conflict, be sufficient as reason it should be used here? You seem to be very confused about Wikipedia's neutrality stance as well as what constitutes a reliable source. 136.54.91.222 (talk) 01:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is American and the US government is a reliable source. You need the New York Times to say it too? 2600:4041:78DE:3C00:3C1D:E840:4A26:D700 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add acronym for PNA where it is first used

In the first paragraph, the reference to Palestinian National Authority should include the acronym used later in the article, i.e. "It also holds a majority in the parliament of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)." -Ethan (talk) • 2023-10-08 19:47 (UTC) 19:47, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Andumé (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023

In "Finances and Funding", paragraph 4:

Change "began cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities" to "began to cut its funding by cracking down on Islamic charities" Duckduckgoop (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 October 2023 (2)

Under "Terrorist designation":

Change "Japan and New Zealand," to "Japan and New Zealand" Duckduckgoop (talk) 08:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Anti semitism" in Hamas's ideologies needs editing

Anti-semitism is a form of racism, and Hamas used to emphasize anti-Semitism in the 1988 charter. However, Hamas now doesn't emphasize anti-Semitism after the 2017 charter was issued [1]. And the the only people who deny the 2017 charter are the Zionists.[2]. Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral website[3], and keeping the "anti-Semitism" on "ideologies" doesn't help since it indirectly promotes Zionist views. I appreciate if you can either edit "anti-Semitism" to "anti-Semitism (denied)" or remove "anti-Semitism" from this article's ideologies section. 37.39.247.202 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it from the infobox, since it is indeed not established in the body that Hamas ideologically takes this position. There appears to be no assessment of the 2017 charter re: this at all. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's assessed negatively here, for instance, and in any case even without that any changes made supposedly on the basis of the 2017 charter need to be based on secondary sources. We must rely on secondary sources to evaluate how meaningful the changes really are, or if they are simply a PR move or whitewash. Crossroads -talk- 20:49, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full#:~:text=16.-,Hamas%20affirms%20that%20its%20conflict%20is%20with%20the%20Zionist%20project%20not,and%20the%20Jews%20with%20their%20own%20colonial%20project%20and%20illegal%20entity.,-17.%20Hamas
  2. ^ https://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-dismisses-purportedly-friendlier-hamas-charter/
  3. ^ "Wikipedia has an internal policy which states that articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant points of view that have been verifiably published by reliable sources on a topic." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideological_bias_on_Wikipedia#:~:text=Wikipedia%20has%20an,on%20a%20topic.

"Overview"

By what right does the overview, a secondary mini lede, exist? Should be removed and the entire article's prose reduced, seems over-explanatory at several points, including, for example, while discussing the history of the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The second use of "waqf" is wikilinked. The first is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.46.48 (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tablet Magazine as unreliable source.

Tablet Magazine is clearly a partisan source which has been reporting unverified events over the past few days, for example quoting unnamed sources as evidence of mass rape in the Hamas attack on the music festival and claiming direct Iranian involvement, both claims that have not been corroborated by further sources. I think a wikipedia article should avoid making such weighty claims without there being forceful evidence to back them up. 2A00:23C4:79C7:B001:3D85:D6C5:7378:ACD2 (talk) 18:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if they are biased, this does not disqualify them per WP:BIAS. As to your examples, I'm not sure they tell us anything about the magazine's reliability. Can you show reliable sources which contradict these accounts? Alaexis¿question? 19:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Can you show reliable sources which contradict these accounts?"
In what world is this the standard for a claim? Regardless, The article's writer spoke to a person who claims to have watched a video in which no rape occurs, and no note of any indication rape has or will occur. This is the source of the claim that mass rape occurred. 2603:7080:3801:2C18:B935:7321:CA06:A565 (talk) 21:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, read the Tablet article referred to, and did not find it to be a very convincing source for the claim (I have no familiarity with the magazine itself, no prejudice toward it one way or the other). Further, I thought it was an odd, jarring interjection at that point in the Wikipedia article; even if true, it seemed purposefully inflammatory. Seems like it belongs much later, if at all. 2601:183:201:E2D0:EC87:A39D:BE34:CEC (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIAS is not a Guideline. This is the official WP guideline concerning bias: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.
Tablet is an extremely biased pro-Israel source. There is absolutely ZERO evidence that mass rape, or any rape, of victims in Israel occurred. This statement and source should be deleted immediately. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 23:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I came here to report the same claim and its source. There is zero evidence that any victim in Israel has been raped. The Tablet source is at the very least, double hearsay. Person A conveyed they watched someone else’s video (Person B) (that does not show rape) and told Person C and they told the “reporter” at Tablet. LegalResearcherSTL (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say the same thing. That website is preposterous as a source, especially for such a serious claim placed in a prominent position in a contentious article. The magazine in question clearly has a strong pro-Israel bias and the blog entry itself provides zero evidence for its claims. 136.54.91.222 (talk) 01:51, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Same claim here also 67.11.15.25 (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At this point this discussion is moot as there are plenty of other media outlets that wrote that survivors said that women were raped (Marca The Times). We should be careful with wording here and not say that it happened in wikivoice, but rather that this is what survivors report. Alaexis¿question? 07:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"survivors said that women were raped" Big surprise there. Wartime sexual violence is never rare in conflicts of every era, and is nearly synonymous with gang rape. Vae victis (woe to the vanquished), or "those defeated in battle are entirely at the mercy of their conquerors". Dimadick (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Website

The Hamas website is not working for me. I need someone else to try on something that is not microsoft edge and see if it works. If it does not then maybe consider removing it 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5F4:B596:782B:FB2C (talk) 22:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas Website

The Hamas website is not working for me. I need someone else to try on something that is not microsoft edge and see if it works. If it does not then maybe consider removing it 2604:3D09:AF84:5900:5F4:B596:782B:FB2C (talk) 22:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hamas is a terror organization

As stated in the article, most of the Western governments: including the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and many others declared that Hamas is a terror organization.

Saturday's massacre, in which hundreds of innocent unarmed civilians were murdered and kidnapped, including toddlers, proves that Hamas is a terror organization. This must be written in black on white in the article's introduction - Hamas is a terror organization.

Many horrifying videos of the massacre were published by Hamas. Meaning they were proud of murdering all of those innocent human beings. They published the videos because they thought that there was public support for such acts. Not willing to mention loud and clear that Hamas is a terror organization public support for Hamas that encourages them to keep murdering innocent lives.

We must not look around but state as clearly as possible: Hamas is a terror organization. Do it. This is the human thing to do. Yonathan33 (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Western countries are supporters of Israel. They are not unbiased. Hamas certainly uses uncouth tactics, but so does the IDF. 128.189.114.118 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Provisional Irish Republican Army article offers, in my opinion, persuasive precedent for how we should use the term. It discusses who designated it, and the fact news orgs routinely referred to the PIRA as "terrorist" while maintaining a neutral point of view by avoiding using the label in the narrative voice. Yr Enw (talk) 14:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As described in MOS:TERRORIST. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was now published that in the Kfar Aza massacre, 40 bodies of children were found, some of them were beheaded.[1] You can't, by any means, even try to justify this horrific attack. Hamas is a terror group. Most western countries declared Hamas as a terror organizition, and they are not "biased", they say the truth. Countries that praise Hamas and refuse to call it terror group are usually dictatorships that murder their own people. There is no way that an orgnaization that did all of those horrors will not be label as terroist. The article should start "Hamas is a terror orgnization" because this is the truth. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]
  1. ^ Watrobski, Kristina (10 October 2023). "At least 40 babies killed, beheaded in Israeli kibbutz outside Gaza Strip, reports say". WHAM. Retrieved 10 October 2023.
Nobody in this section has justified it. You've got to detach labelling something terrorism from thinking something is bad. They are not the same. Yr Enw (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia "Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims". Murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of Islam is terrorism. Hamas is a terror orgnization. Yonathan33 (talk) 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Murdering hundreds of innocent civilians in the name of Israeli self-defence could also, then, be called terrorism? It's intentional violence and fear to achieve political aims. And see how we've got nowhere? There's little point continuing this discussion because the content of the wiki article isn't about our opinions or feelings, it's about presenting what people are saying. And, before I am accused of it, in no way do I think the recent actions of Hamas are in any way justified or acceptable. Yr Enw (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yr Enw, Israel doesn't murder innocent civilians. Collateral damage is not murder. It's a regrettable yet often unavoidable byproduct of conducting a functional miliary operation, particularly when an adversary embeds itself among civilians to deliberately use them as human shields. That's quite different from infiltrating a residential home that has no military value and cutting the head off of infant in its crib. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to question though. We already have hundreds of reliable sources worldwide forming a consensus, and thousands of images and videos showing them executing children and kidnapping people. At what point do we label an organization a terror organization? According to you Yr Enw, it is never, which is against the guidelines in MOS:TERRORIST. I think it is finally time to make the shift. Bar Harel (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fateh magazine

This section is not supported by sufficiently reliable sources to clearly substantiate either the direct link of this publication to Hamas or its other claims. The only sources present are highly partisan ones. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitive wording on ongoing Hamas conflict

The word “operation” is used repetitively:

”Hamas launched a major operation against Israel, considered one of the largest operations against Israel…” Travis2626 (talk) 11:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that. Selfstudier (talk) 11:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Hamas a "terrorist" organization

Consensus for this has not been established in the discussions, yet someone changed the lead sentence to describe Hamas (as a matter of fact) as a terrorist organization. Clearly violation of MOS:TERRORIST. 128.189.114.118 (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Has this been reversed? I can't see any mention of the word in the lead Yr Enw (talk) 14:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, It indeed has been reverted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2023

The article mentions a military campaign that Hamas waged against Israel on October 7th, making it sound like normal military battles between two countries while what Hamas did is not a normal military campaign but they infiltrated a music festival and murdered and kidnapped hundreds of unarmed youngsters and then infiltrated homes and did the same to babies, elderly and others. That is not a military campaign but a massacre and Wikipedia should update otherwise Wikipedia is supporting terrorism 2A12:A9C0:F4:0:0:0:0:1002 (talk) 16:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the sources? 37.39.187.158 (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Read the editreq "specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it" and then supply RS to back up the request. Selfstudier (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Hamas edit war

The history section of this article is linking to History of Hamas, but there's an edit war going in the History of Hamas article and the history article is not protected unlike this one. Nakonana (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now the article is protected. That was quick. Thanks and sorry for bringing it up on this talk page instead of the other, but I don't know how to initiate a protection request and thought I'd likely get the necessary attention here to make it happen. Nakonana (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: In future, the place to ask for protection is WP:RFPP. I suspect that there will be no shortage of articles that will need protection in the near-future. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More recent polling data for Palestinian views on Hamas

There is an old link in the article showing that 50%+ of Palestinians believe that Hamas is the most deserving party of representing the Palestinian people, but a new poll was released in September showing support for Hamas is only about 30% (see Section 3 of link). The poll was conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research which is the same body cited by the AP in the Hamas article. Can someone with clearance please update the first sentence of the third paragraph to reflect this? Wschreyer (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wschreyer: Done. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia thanks! I just double-checked and for some reason it looks like your edit was already taken down? I confirmed it appeared in the article shortly after your reply. Wschreyer (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hemiauchenia nevermind it's back up. Wschreyer (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KlayCax rollback

What's the consenus on this rollback? I don't think the edit summary "reverted unexplained edits" is particularly reasonable, given that most edits they were reverting had clearly explained rationales in edit summaries. The main change appears to be the restoration of the criticism section, which @Iskandar323: had largely moved to a separate article, which I do not have a strong opinion about. I don't think the reversion of the lead section to the old version was an improvement. I don't really feel I can edit the lead because that might be construed as a violation of the 1RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits remove notable information about the organization for apparently no reason, @Hemiauchenia:.
Compare the original version here to the revised one here.
The original:

is a Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist and militant organization in Palestine.

becomes:

is an Islamic political and military organization that currently governs the Gaza Strip, one of the two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank.

Similar problematic changes occur throughout. The article's quality gets significantly downgraded. KlayCax (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This honestly doesn't seem that problematic of a change to me (though I don't have a strong opinion about either version) "fundamentalism" is pretty vague, and their ideology is better explained further down in the lead. To be honest, looking through most of the changes you reverted they seemed to have improved the article rather than degraded it, or to have at least not really detracted from it. Your rollback also removed notable information about the organization for apparently no reason, like the mention of the massacres during the recent conflict at Hamas#Attacks_on_civilians, and the recent polling numbers of the organisation among Palestinians [1]. Ultimately, this article is probably going to be heavily edited for the duration of this war, and you aren't going to be able to mass-rollback to your preferred version everytime that somebody makes an edit that you don't like. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I didn't mean to come across as hostile. @Hemiauchenia:. I hope you didn't interpret the rollback that way. It was primary focused on the wording of the lead — not the body — although I also feel that some of the information retained by @Iskandar323: should be maintained within the article. That's all. Sunni Islamic fundamentalist is what Hamas is described as in the academic literature.
"Islamic" has been used - like Unitarianism or sede Catholicism within "Christianity" - to describe a whole variety of widely varying beliefs. That's why I have a strong preference for the first version. Would you be okay with "Sunni-Islamic fundamentalist" or something similar being restored into the article? It feels to me like a dramatic loss of information to simply label the organization as simply such. KlayCax (talk) 23:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have strong opinions about the opening sentence, I'm personally fine with either version, though I see that you were rollbacked again, which means that you can't revert again without being over the 1RR. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A basic summary has been left in the criticism section alongside the link, but anyone is free to expand that summary from the page on the child article. However, the split was very much explained and its reasons obvious, and in fact, the page is arguably still too long (at 95kB readable prose) and in need of further trimming - though simple cuts to the already split history section may be the easiest route for this. Given that we have now already been presented with the irony of a combination of a revert summary citing inadequate explanation and edits with no edit summary, as highlighted in the summary of the revert of the revert, I would highly recommend pre-emptive dialogue on talk as a more collegiate route for any further discussion of recent changes moving forward. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Between the two lead statements, past and present, the second clearly provides more core information, and Hamas' governance of the Gaza Strip is clearly core information that should be in the first sentence per MOS:LEAD, so I would say it's an improvement. This fact is basically central to everything that is going on now, and the reason why the collective punishment of Gaza is being rhetorically justified. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classification by the Organization of American States

From a purely technical point of view, I kindly ask for someone with clearance to remove the OAS from the list of countries/organizations that have classified Hamas as a terrorist organization.

From the sources pointed in the article, one can see that such “classification” was actually just a statement from the Secretary-General of the Organization to the press. There is no official document from the Secretariat establishing this.

In fact, the reason for this is that the Secretary-General can’t actually do that. Such formal declaration has to come not from the Secretary-General, but from the General Assembly, through a Resolution, since that’s the organ responsible for any decisions regarding the policy of the Organization and its relations with other states, per article 54.a and 112.h of the Charter of the OAS.

Imagine that Antonio Guterres gave a statement today condemning Hamas and saying that it’s a terrorist organization, would that be enough to edit the article in order for it to display that the UN classifies Hamas as such? I firmly believe it wouldn’t, since the General Assembly has never managed to pass a Resolution on it. To keep things coherent, the same standard should be applied to the OAS’ position.

All in all, I’d deeply appreciate if anyone allowed to edit removes OAS from the list on the grounds I exposed. Thanks very much! Hookko27 (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well observed. Yes, the source is merely a call by the Secretary-General for the designation, not proof that such a designation was ever made. The other source then just conveniently omitted this. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using Sources that Postdate Terrorist Designation

The sentence: "However, the group's usage of human shields, methods of hostage taking, and history of violence against non-combatants, including massacres of civilian populations, has led to many Western countries and allied nations designating it as a terrorist organization" uses sources that postdate the designation of Hamas as a terrorist organization. The current conflict should be kept separate from previous conflicts that caused the terrorist designation. Gurgle528 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the chronology matters here. It's not about when the source was published, but about the contents of the source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not referring to the publish date, I'm referring to the date of the events in the sources. The date of the events in the source (Oct 2023) postdate the designation as a terrorist organization by 10-20+ years. Gurgle528 (talk) 16:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gurgle528: Do you have any better sources in mind then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:58, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2018 UN resolution

Does anyone know where to find the full text of the failed 2018 UN general assembly resolution regarding Hamas rocket attacks? It's unclear to me about whether it specifically mentions the word "terrorist/terrorism". Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is it: https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/1654199?ln=en
The document mentions "acts of terror" but according to the UN Press, Nikki Haley introduced it as one of the "ugliest cases of terrorism in the world": https://press.un.org/en/2018/ga12101.doc.htm Gurgle528 (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Media and Culture Theory - MDC 254

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Curry7524 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Curry7524 (talk) 14:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hamas&oldid=1179709537"